Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MICHAEL ANTHONY TAYLOR )
vs. ) No. 05-4173-CV-C-FJG
LARRY CRAWFORD, et al., )
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 3, 2005, and an amended complaint on
September 12, 2005 (Doc. #36)1. In his First Amended Complaint plaintiff sought a
declaratory judgment that Missouri’s method of execution by lethal injection violates the
Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments because it would inflict on him cruel
and unusual punishment, would deprive him of life, liberty or property without due
process of law and would inflict upon him a badge of slavery, in that the three drug
sequence using a procedure whereby the drugs are administered through the femoral
artery creates a foreseeable risk of the infliction of gratuitous pain. Plaintiff also argued
that the physician’s role in the execution violated medical ethics. On December 28,
2005, the Court issued an Order denying defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and ruling that
the case presented factual issues which would likely be resolved by either a motion for
Richard Clay was previously granted leave to intervene in this action. On
January 30, 2006, the Court orally granted Mr. Clay’s Motion to Dismiss this action as to
him without prejudice. Reginald Clemons also had a pending Motion for Leave to
Intervene in this action. He has now also moved to withdraw from this action.
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 2 of 16
summary judgment or through a hearing (Doc. # 54). On January 3, 2006, the
defendants notified the Court that the Supreme Court of Missouri had set plaintiff’s
execution date for February 1, 2006. On January 18, 2006, plaintiff filed an Application
for a Court Order requesting that the Court issue an Order directing that Taylor not be
executed until further order of the Court to be issued within a reasonable time after a
hearing on the merits which was scheduled for February 21, 2006. On January 19,
2006, Judge Scott Wright issued an Order staying the execution until the Court could
conduct the hearing (Doc. # 62). The same day, defendants appealed Judge Wright’s
ruling to the Eighth Circuit. On January 29, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order
reversing and vacating Judge Wright’s January 19, 2006 Order. The Eighth Circuit
remanded the case to the Western District and directed that the Court reassign the case
to another judge for an immediate hearing. The Eighth Circuit directed that an Order be
issued no later than 12:00 Noon on Wednesday, February 1, 2006. This case was
assigned to this Court on Monday, January 30, 2006.
On January 30-31, 2006, this Court conducted a telephonic hearing regarding
plaintiff’s Complaint. During the telephonic hearing, the Court heard the testimony of
the following individuals: Dr. Mark Dershwitz, Dr. Jonathan I. Groner, Dr. Mark Heath
and Terry W. Moore, the Director of Adult Institutions for the Missouri Department of
Corrections. Plaintiff requested that the State produce John Doe Numbers One and Two
(the doctor and the nurse who participated in the most recent execution), but this
request was denied. Plaintiff also sought to present the testimony of Dr. Sri Melethil, a
pharmacokineticist, but he was out of town and unable to appear until the morning of
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 3 of 16
February 1, 2006. After considering the evidence and the testimony of these
individuals, the Court determined that neither the chemicals used by the State for lethal
injection nor the procedure employed to administer these injections constituted cruel or
unusual punishment. The Court noted that while the plaintiff suggested a different
approach to lethal injection, he had not shown that the current method used by Missouri
violated the Eighth Amendment. Further the Court was not persuaded that the use of
the femoral vein for the administration of the lethal injection violated applicable
standards of the Eighth Amendment. The Court also did not find that Missouri
physicians who are involved in administering lethal injections were violating their ethical
obligations or that the procedure was violative of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff appealed this Court’s January 31, 2006 Order, arguing that he did not
have sufficient time to present his arguments to the Court during the two day telephonic
hearing. Plaintiff argued that this Court had abused its discretion in not allowing him to
call John Doe I and II or Dr. Melethil and also erred in denying his claims. On April 27,
2006, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this Court to reconvene the hearing. The
Eighth Circuit gave the parties thirty days to engage in some limited additional discovery
and then an additional thirty days within which the hearing was to be held and for this
Court to issue its Order, amending, modifying or restating the previous judgment and
certifying the same to the Eighth Circuit.
The Court allowed plaintiff to conduct the following discovery: a Rule 34
inspection and videotaped tour of Missouri’s execution chamber, a deposition of Larry
Crawford, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections and document requests
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 4 of 16
which pertained to the last six executions carried out by the State of Missouri. The
document requests included any execution logs, records, autopsy reports, test results
and analyses of post-mortem/toxicology reports. The State also provided information
regarding what specialized training the physicians and nurses undergo who participate
in administration of the drugs and all documents pertaining to any fall back procedures
regarding vein access and the three drug sequence. The Court also allowed plaintiff to
submit interrogatories to John Doe Defendants I - V. After John Doe I submitted his
interrogatory responses, plaintiff again asked the Court for permission to depose him.
The Court allowed plaintiff to conduct a limited anonymous deposition of John Doe I.
This deposition was conducted at the Courthouse, with only the Court and counsel
present. On June 12 -13, 2006 this Court continued the hearing which was begun in
January 2006. During the hearing, plaintiff presented the testimony of Dr. Mark Heath,
an anesthesiologist, Dr. Stephen Johnson, an expert in central line placement and
femoral line placement and Dr. Thomas Henthorn, an expert in pharmokinetics. The
State presented the testimony of Dr. Mark Dershwitz, an anesthesiologist, Terry Moore,
Director of Adult Institutions for Department of Corrections and Larry Crawford, Director
of the Department of Corrections.
The Eighth Amendment provides that “cruel and unusual punishment” shall not
be inflicted. It prohibits punishments that are “incompatible with the ‘evolving standards
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 5 of 16
of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Estelle v. Gamble 429 U.S.
97, 102, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86,
101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958)). As to executions, it prohibits “the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” as well as methods involving torture or a
lingering death. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49
L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). “The cruelty against which the Constitution protects a convicted
man is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment, not the necessary suffering
involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely.” Louisiana ex rel. Francis
v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 464, 67 S.Ct. 374, 376, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947)(emphasis
added). Additionally, as the Court noted in Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 687 (9th Cir.
1994), “[t]he risk of accident cannot and need not be eliminated from the execution
process in order to survive constitutional review.”
B. Missouri’s Execution Procedure
During the January 30-31, 2006 hearing, Terry Moore, Director of Adult
Institutions for the Missouri Department of Corrections, described what he believed was
the execution procedure used in Missouri. Mr. Moore testified that three drugs are
administered by a board certified physician. The physician first administers five grams
of sodium pentothal, also known as thiopental, which is a substance that produces
anesthesia. Thereafter, the physician administers a syringe of saline to flush the IV line.
Next, the physician administers pancuronium bromide, also referred to as pancuronium.
This drug is a paralytic agent which prevents any involuntary movement of the body.
The physician then again administers the saline solution. Finally, the third drug which is
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 6 of 16
administered is potassium chloride, which is a drug which stops the electrical activity of
the heart. There was no dispute that if an inmate is not sufficiently anesthetized when
the potassium chloride is administered, it will cause excruciating pain as it is
administered through the inmate’s veins. The inmate, however, would be unable to
show that he was experiencing discomfort due to the paralyzing effects of the
After the Eighth Circuit remanded this case, the Court allowed plaintiff to conduct
additional limited discovery. In a letter sent to the Court on May 17, 2006, plaintiff’s
counsel informed the Court that new evidence in the form of chemical dispensary logs,
which had recently been produced by the State, contradicted the State’s previous
representations regarding the amount of thiopental that is used during executions.
In response, counsel for the State confirmed in a letter sent to the Court on May
17, 2006 that 5 grams of sodium pentothal are used:
As plaintiff correctly points out, defendants have stated consistently that 5
grams of sodium pentothal are used in executions in Missouri. Five grams
are in fact used. The reference to the 2.5 grams noted in the drug log is
not correct. The doctor and the nurse who have prepared the drugs for
the last six executions and for plaintiff’s stayed execution confirm that 5
grams has been used in the last six executions and was prepared for
plaintiff’s stayed execution. (Defendants are attempting to run down the
source of the error in the record, and continue to do so.)
However, the next day on May 18, 2006, counsel for the State sent the Court
another letter in which they acknowledge that a mistake had in fact been made
regarding the representations as to the amount of thiopental administered. The letter
stated in part:
Upon further review, defendants have just determined this afternoon,
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 7 of 16
contrary to previous representations, that 2.5 grams of sodium pentothal
was prepared and used at the last execution (not 5 grams) and that 2.5
grams was prepared for use at the execution of plaintiff (which was stayed
before the femoral IV was inserted). Defendants and their counsel
apologize to the Court and the parties for providing incorrect information.
(Doc. # 121).
Upon learning of this information, the Court submitted a set of interrogatories to
John Doe I 2 to answer. The Court inquired whether the lethal injection protocol was
codified in any publication, policy statement or state regulation. John Doe I responded
that he was not aware of the protocol being written down in any form. He stated that it
was his understanding at the time of Mr. Gray’s execution that he had the independent
authority to change the dose based on his medical judgment. He stated that this
understanding was based on past contacts with predecessors of the current Director of
the Department of Corrections. When the Court asked how many times the protocol
has been modified since it was put into place, John Doe I responded:
John Doe I can recall one instance when three syringes of potassium
chloride were used based on the obesity of the offender. John Doe I can
recall one instance when the IV was inserted in the offender’s neck
instead of his femoral vein based on the damage to both of his femoral
veins from drug abuse. John Doe I is aware of one instance when a
peripheral IV was used because John Doe I was unable to attend the
execution. For the execution of Mr. Gray and the preparation for the
execution of Mr. Taylor, John Doe I determined to use 2.5 grams of
sodium pentothal. This determination occurred because of difficulty in
dissolving powder, obtained from a new supplier, containing more than 2.5
grams in the liquid that could be accommodated in a syringe. The rate of
infusion and the concentration of the dose ensured that 2.5 grams was
more than sufficient to make the offender unconscious before
administering the remaining drugs. Further, with regard to Mr. Taylor,
John Doe I was aware that the dosage used in the execution of Mr. Gray
(Response to Interrogatory No. 5, Doc. # 152).
Defendants have disclosed that John Doe I is the physician that mixes the drugs
used during the executions.
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 8 of 16
When asked who was consulted before the dosage of thiopental was decreased,
he responded that no one was consulted because he thought it was within the
acceptable parameters to accomplish the goal. When questioned about his medical
background, John Doe stated that although he was a board certified surgeon, he is not
an anesthesiologist. The Court also allowed plaintiff to conduct an anonymous
deposition of John Doe I on June 5, 2006.
When he was asked whether any part of the execution procedure was written
down, John Doe I responded as follows:
A. I have never seen it. If it was, it would have been written on my recommendation.
Q. I see. Do you have any idea why it might not be written down?
A. I’m sure it’s written down somewhere. If they’re checking the logs of all the drugs
every time we use them and recording expiration dates and number of sheets and
needles that we use, I’m certain they have it written down somewhere.
Q. But in terms of the aspects of the procedure that you’re responsible for, that you
perform, those aren’t written down, to your knowledge?
A. It might be written in there, but it would be written on by somebody observing what I
was doing and using their interpretation. So if there was a written procedure that they
had done I would – you know, I’m curious to see what they think I’m doing, but I don’t
know that they write down the individual details of how I insert an 18-gauge rather than
a 22-gauge or a 14-gauge needle.
Q. I see. So people might write things down as you’re doing them, but there’s no guide
that you follow as you’re doing it?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. So you just rely on your memory?
Q. And your judgment?
(John Doe Depo. pp. 69-70)
During his deposition, John Doe I described how he has had to devise an
improvised procedure with regard to mixing the correct dosage of thiopental:
Q. And could you take me step-by-step through that, your improvised process?
A. I’d have to see the containers because I cannot at the present time remember
whether they have glass or – they are actually just two straight-walled glass
bottles. One has powder in the bottom, one has liquid in the bottom, and they are
designed to lock together and mix. So, I have to stick a needle through this
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 9 of 16
plastic and inject my own diluents which I know will give me no more than 50 cc’s
for the final product, which is what I’m aiming for for the final injection.
We have encountered problems trying to mix more than three or four
grams using this method, mainly because of an inert substance possibly put in
by the manufacturer to prevent mis-mixing, which I know several drug companies
will do. So right now the last time I saw and talked to the Director on each of
these occasions saying we either need to change what we say we’re dosing or
we will have to go back to the original five-gram bottle that was available when
we instituted this procedure. So right now we’re still improvising. And he’s also
having me researching an alternate drug if it comes to that.
(John Doe Depo. pp. 9-10).
When John Doe I was asked why he did not initially recall why he prepared a
smaller dose of thiopental, he responded:
A. . . . But I am dyslexic and so I can recall in the operating room specific facts and
details of operation and function perfectly, but in terms of copying one line to
another or trying to simply copy a phone number or account number I will
sometimes transpose numbers even when I’m staring at the two numbers. So,
it’s not unusual for me to make mistakes. . . . But I am dyslexic and that is the
reason why there are inconsistencies in my testimony. That’s why there are
inconsistencies in what I call drugs. I can make these mistakes, but it’s not
medically crucial in the type of work I do as a surgeon.
(John Doe Depo. pp. 24-25)(emphasis added).
In describing how the drugs are administered, John Doe I stated that, “ . . .the
people who do the injections are nonmedical and they’re in the dark so they have a
small flashlight that they’re able to quickly identify the syringes, make the appropriate
connections and injections, disconnect, clamp the tube, and changing the number of
syringes or the order of syringes was an unnecessary risk.” (John Doe Depo. p. 31).
When questioned about whether he monitors anesthetic depth, John Doe I
testified as follows:
Q. Did you monitor Mr. Gray’s anesthetic depth during the execution?
A. I monitor – the only thing that can be monitored is facial expression, and you can
judge when the effect of the drug is accomplished, and that can be seen from across a
room through a window. And when that effect occurs then I know the inmate is
unconscious. . . .
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 10 of 16
Q. So you said that you can see that – an inmate’s facial expression from where you
A. Yes. That’s the only thing any anesthesiologist uses in the course of inducing a
person when pentothal was still used, was you simply started injecting, look at the face,
and again, it’s difficult to describe, but I can tell instantly when the pentothal has taken
effect. And in medical practice the instant the pentothal has taken effect they gave
absolutely no more because then they move on to the actual anesthesia which has to
be started before the pentothal wears off.
(John Doe Depo. pp. 41-42).
When he was asked whether he had any discussions with Director Crawford
about the scope of his authority, John Doe I stated:
A. Oh, yes. We talk – I talk in his office and at the time of the execution. In fact, he’s
the only director I have actually gone over to his office for other reasons and visited
about this. And again, he has no background in corrections and he has no background
in medicine, so the other corrections officers had long backgrounds in corrections so
they were aware of what we were doing and why we were doing it. Since he has no
background in either field, he reiterated that he’s totally dependent on me advising him
what could and should and will be done, and he will back up – if I think there’s a change
that needs to be made, he wants me to quickly inform him so he can make the
Q. I see. So, it’s your understanding that if you thought a change to the execution
procedure needed to be made you would – Director Crawford would defer to your
(John Doe Depo. pp. 63-64).
C. Is Missouri’s Execution Procedure Constitutional?
In Morales v. Hickman, 415 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D.Cal. 2006), aff’d, 438 F.3d 926
(9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,126 S.Ct.1314,163 L.Ed.2d 1148 (2006), the Court stated:
The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that are incompatible
with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society. . . . Executions that involve the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain . . . or that involve torture or a lingering death . . . are not
permitted. When analyzing a particular method of execution or the
implementation thereof, it is appropriate to focus on the objective evidence
of the pain involved. . . .In this case, the Court must determine whether
Plaintiff is subject to an unnecessary risk of unconstitutional pain or
suffering such that his execution by lethal injection under California’s
protocol must be restrained.
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 11 of 16
Id. at 1039 (internal citations and quotations omitted)(emphasis added). In that case the
Court focused on the narrow issue of “whether or not there is a reasonable possibility
that Plaintiff will be conscious when he is injected with pancuronium bromide or
potassium chloride, and, if so, how the risk of such an occurrence may be avoided.” Id.
at 1040. This is precisely the same question which this Court must address.
After learning more about how executions are carried out in Missouri, through
the interrogatories submitted to the John Doe defendants, reviewing the chemical
dispensary logs, reviewing the videotape of the execution chamber and listening to the
testimony of John Doe I, and to the testimony of the other expert witnesses at the June
12-13, 2006 hearing, it is apparent that there are numerous problems. For example,
there is no written protocol which describes which drugs will be administered, in what
amounts and defines how they will be administered. John Doe I testified that he came
up with the current protocol. John Doe I also testified that he felt that he had the
authority to change or modify the formula as he saw fit. It is apparent that he has
changed and modified the protocol on several occasions in the past. He has reduced
the amount of thiopental given from 5.0 grams to 2.5 grams and has also changed the
location on the inmate’s body where the drugs were administered. It is obvious that the
protocol as it currently exists is not carried out consistently and is subject to change at a
The Court is also concerned that John Doe I possesses total discretion for the
execution protocol. Currently, there are no checks and balances or oversight, either
before, during or after the lethal injection occurs. No one monitors the changes or
modifications that John Doe I makes. John Doe I even testified that the Director of the
Department of Corrections, Mr. Crawford, has no medical or corrections background,
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 12 of 16
and that he is “totally dependent on me advising him.” (John Doe Depo. p. 64).
In addition to the fact that there is no oversight and the responsibility for making
changes or adjustments is completely vested in one individual, the Court also has
concerns about John Doe I’s qualifications. John Doe I readily admitted that he is
dyslexic and that he has difficulty with numbers and oftentimes transposes numbers.
John Doe I testified “it’s not unusual for me to make mistakes. . . . But I am dyslexic and
that is the reason why there are inconsistencies in my testimony. That’s why there are
inconsistencies in what I call drugs. I can make these mistakes, but it’s not medically
crucial in the type of work I do as a surgeon.” (John Doe Depo. p. 25). The Court
disagrees and is gravely concerned that a physician who is solely responsible for
correctly mixing the drugs which will be responsible for humanely ending the life of
condemned inmates has a condition which causes him confusion with regard to
numbers. As the Court has learned, the process of mixing the three different drugs and
knowing the correct amount of the drugs to dissolve in the correct amount of solution
involves precise measurements and the ability to use, decipher, and not confuse
numbers. Although John Doe I does not feel this is crucial in the type of work he does
as a surgeon, it is critical when one is mixing and dissolving chemicals for a lethal
In addition, John Doe I testified that although he is not an anesthesiologist, he
monitors the anesthetic depth of an inmate by observing the inmate’s facial expression.
However, as can be seen from the videotape of the execution chamber, when the
inmate is lying on the gurney in the execution room, the inmate is facing away from the
Operations room where John Doe I is located. Additionally, it is dark in the Operations
room and there are blinds on the window which are partially closed and obstruct the
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 13 of 16
view. This would make it almost impossible for John Doe I to observe the inmate’s
facial expression. This leads the Court to conclude that there is little or no monitoring of
the inmate to ensure that he has received an adequate dose of anesthesia before the
other two chemicals are administered.
All of these concerns lead the Court to conclude that Missouri’s lethal injection
procedure subjects condemned inmates to an unnecessary risk that they will be subject
to unconstitutional pain and suffering when the lethal injection drugs are administered.
D. Revisions to the Execution Protocol
Having determined that Missouri’s current method of administering lethal
injections subjects condemned inmates to an unacceptable risk of suffering
unconstitutional pain and suffering, the Court concludes that it is within its equitable
powers to fashion a remedy that “preserves both the State’s interest in proceeding with
Plaintiff’s execution and Plaintiff’s constitutional right not to be subject to an undue risk
of extreme pain.” Morales, 415 F.Supp.2d at 1046. Director Crawford testified at the
hearing that the Department of Corrections is in the process of developing a directive
which would establish a protocol for administering lethal injections. However, from his
testimony, it was apparent that the directive would not encompass all of the attributes
which the Court finds are necessary to ensure that lethal injections are carried out
humanely. Recently other courts have also faced this challenge and have modified
execution procedures in those states. See e.g. Brown v. Beck, No. 5:06-CT-3018-H,
(E.D.N.C. April 7, 2006)(Doc. No. 32) and Morales, 415 F.Supp.2d at 1046.
Accordingly, the Court hereby AMENDS its previous order of January 31, 2006
and ORDERS the Department of Corrections for the State of Missouri to prepare a
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 14 of 16
written protocol for the implementation of lethal injections which incorporates the
A board certified anesthesiologist shall be responsible for the mixing of all drugs
which are used in the lethal injection process. If the anesthesiologist does not actually
administer the drugs through the IV, he or she shall directly observe those individuals
who do so. Additionally, the Operations Room shall be sufficiently lighted so that the
corrections personnel can see which drugs are being administered.
2. Lethal Injection Drugs & Method of Administration
The level of thiopental administered shall not be less than 5 grams. Pancuronium
Bromide and Potassium Chloride will not be administered until the anesthesiologist
certifies that the inmate has achieved sufficient anesthetic depth so that the inmate will
not feel any undue pain when the Potassium Chloride is injected. The State in
conjunction with the anesthesiologist will have discretion to determine the most
appropriate location on the inmate’s body to inject the drugs. The State shall specify in
the protocol how the anesthesiologist will certify that the inmate has achieved the
appropriate anesthetic depth.
The State will put in place procedures which will allow the anesthesiologist to
adequately monitor the anesthetic depth of the inmate. This may require the State to
purchase additional equipment in order to adequately monitor anesthetic depth. The
State should also consider repositioning the gurney so that the inmates’s face will be
visible to the anesthesiologist, using a mirror, or even allowing the anesthesiologist to
be present in the room with the inmate when the drugs are injected.
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 15 of 16
4. Contingency Plan
The State’s protocol shall also contain a contingency plan in case problems develop
during the execution procedure.
5. Auditing Process
The Department of Corrections shall put in place an auditing process which will
ensure that the individuals involved in the lethal injection process are correctly following
the protocol, including administering the correct dosages of the medication, in the
proper order. The Court contemplates that the State will consult with a board certified
anesthesiologist in designing the auditing process.
6. Changes to the Lethal Injection Procedure
After approval by the Court, no further changes shall be made to the lethal
injection protocol without seeking the prior approval of this Court. This Order
contemplates consultation with a board certified anesthesiologist in arriving at a
proposed written protocol. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the State's
implementation of the lethal injection protocol for the next six executions or until the
Court is satisfied that the protocol is being administered in a consistent fashion. The
Department of Corrections shall submit its revised lethal execution protocol to this Court
for review and approval on or before July 15, 2006. All executions in the State of
Missouri are hereby STAYED pending approval of the protocol.
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby AMENDS its January 31, 2006
Order and in accordance with the April 27, 2006 Order of the Eighth Circuit, this Court
Case 2:05-cv-04173-FJG Document 195 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 16 of 16
hereby CERTIFIES this Order to the Eighth Circuit for its review and consideration.
Date: June 26, 2006 S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Kansas City, Missouri Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
United States District Judge